Is the CoronaVirus Actually Saving Lives Overall? Do Coro Precautions Reduce More Flu Deaths Than Die From Coro?

So far that is probably the case. If the medical system gets overrun in the next few weeks, that argument will no longer be valid as access to care will become a huge issue.

Deep Thinking... wrote:

So far roughly 5,000 people of died of the Coronavirus. It makes me wonder how many less deadly cases of the flu have occurred due to CoronaVirus quarantines, how many less fatal auto accidents they’ve been due to less cars on the road, etc.

What does everyone think the net death rate is due to the CoronaVirus and subsequent reaction to it?

Does deep thinking produce the knowledge of how to use "less" vs. "fewer"?

I have a deep thought about that.

You raise a fascinating point. FASCINATING. People keep social distance, wash their hands all the time and fewer overall die. Wow.

Google says that 650,000 die worlwide annually with the flue with 88,100 of those coming in China.

If we are at 5,000 worldwide deaths right now due to Coronavirus, even if that doubles to 10k then if the flu deaths are reduced by just 2%, we are net ahead.

Really good post.

Someonewhoknows wrote:

Deep Thinking... wrote:

So far roughly 5,000 people of died of the Coronavirus. It makes me wonder how many less deadly cases of the flu have occurred due to CoronaVirus quarantines, how many less fatal auto accidents they’ve been due to less cars on the road, etc.

What does everyone think the net death rate is due to the CoronaVirus and subsequent reaction to it?

Does deep thinking produce the knowledge of how to use "less" vs. "fewer"?

I have a deep thought about that.

You must be a blast at parties!!

rojo wrote:

You raise a fascinating point. FASCINATING. People keep social distance, wash their hands all the time and fewer overall die. Wow.

Google says that 650,000 die worlwide annually with the flue with 88,100 of those coming in China.

If we are at 5,000 worldwide deaths right now due to Coronavirus, even if that doubles to 10k then if the flu deaths are reduced by just 2%, we are net ahead.

Really good post.

Thank you Rojo!!

Deep Thinking... wrote:

rojo wrote:

You raise a fascinating point. FASCINATING. People keep social distance, wash their hands all the time and fewer overall die. Wow.

Google says that 650,000 die worlwide annually with the flue with 88,100 of those coming in China.

If we are at 5,000 worldwide deaths right now due to Coronavirus, even if that doubles to 10k then if the flu deaths are reduced by just 2%, we are net ahead.

Really good post.

Thank you Rojo!!

It almost certainly comes out ahead, yes. However it comes at a solid economic cost due to the reduced spending and demand.

Which is worse depends on the situation, but I think we are treating CoV correctly.

Deep Thinking... wrote:

Someonewhoknows wrote:

Does deep thinking produce the knowledge of how to use "less" vs. "fewer"?

I have a deep thought about that.

You must be a blast at parties!!

Don't worry, he doesn't get invited to parties

rojo wrote:

You raise a fascinating point. FASCINATING. People keep social distance, wash their hands all the time and fewer overall die. Wow.

Google says that 650,000 die worlwide annually with the flue with 88,100 of those coming in China.

If we are at 5,000 worldwide deaths right now due to Coronavirus, even if that doubles to 10k then if the flu deaths are reduced by just 2%, we are net ahead.

Really good post.

you are an idiot. Truly

The overall death rate in the world will be down slightly and the overall birth rate will be up significantly due to isolation. It obviously is not singular isolation, but familiar isolation.

If the healthcare system is overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients this takes capacity away from other life-threatening conditions that would otherwise be independent. This is the current situation in Italy.

It is extremely likely that the number of cases is higher than the reported numbers just due to the fact that it takes time for hospital info to get to the statistics departments. Don't discount the likelihood of China and other authoritarian regimes grossly under reporting their numbers.

rojo wrote:

You raise a fascinating point. FASCINATING. People keep social distance, wash their hands all the time and fewer overall die. Wow.

Google says that 650,000 die worlwide annually with the flue with 88,100 of those coming in China.

If we are at 5,000 worldwide deaths right now due to Coronavirus, even if that doubles to 10k then if the flu deaths are reduced by just 2%, we are net ahead.

Really good post.

It's certainly interesting to think about the effects of social distancing, handwashing, etc...

However, the idea that the worldwide deaths will only double is wildly optimistic. Also (writing as a US citizen), the risk of "collateral damage" of the especially poorly-prepared US health system being overwhelmed and people with other health issues therefore dying due to inadequate treatment should not be ignored. (If things get *really* bad and prolonged, which I hope they do not, there is more potential collateral damage not yet discussed, including effects of people running out of money, afraid or unable to go seek needed medical attention, etc...). Finally, the lack of competent leadership in some countries (USA high on this list) means delays, lack of test kits, inept presidential announcements (go to work if you're mildly sick with Corona? really???), defunding of health agencies, inadequate facilities, etc... are likely to cause higher death rates that in other places. An article with no political agenda but looking at the "math," here is the best article I've seen on the repercussions of public health decisions in this situation:

While the "net ahead" argument seems wildly optimistic (I hope, but doubt, that you're right!), the initial post echos something I was thinking about a few days ago, but have not seen news articles address: How can we assess how well people are really adhering to social distancing, hand washing, etc...? I would think that health experts could use data about flu cases as one way to gauge this.

a human wrote:

Predictor wrote:

The overall death rate in the world will be down slightly and the overall birth rate will be up significantly due to isolation. It obviously is not singular isolation, but familiar isolation.

Ha, good point.

How about all the muggers and murderers doing social separation as well? The crime rate will plummet. The worse coronavirus gets, the better the unforeseen consequences are looking.

Misinformation

Reported

I, for one, have increased by a very large amount the number of times I wash my hands per day. I'm also much more cognizant of 'covering my cough' and trying not to touch my face among other things like not touching door handles etc. Prior to this I was like an unwashed barbarian (according to my wife) in these regards. Probably not just me.

Deep Thinking... wrote:

So far roughly 5,000 people of died of the Coronavirus. It makes me wonder how many less deadly cases of the flu have occurred due to CoronaVirus quarantines, how many less fatal auto accidents they’ve been due to less cars on the road, etc.

What does everyone think the net death rate is due to the CoronaVirus and subsequent reaction to it?

The flu's fatality is .1%. COVID19 is 2%.

So it probably doesn't even itself out because it is 20x higher deaths.

If the virus gets rid of trump quicker, probably less people will die.

False news. Much less than 2%.

REPORTED

What is your source?

At last count, there were 132,306 confirmed cases with 4,946 deaths. Admittedly there are likely a number of unconfirmed cases out there, but a number of the confirmed cases that have not yet recovered will die as well. 2% is probably about right if one assumes there is an equal amount of unconfirmed cases out there and if a portion of the unrecovered confirmed cases end up as fatalities.

How many confirmed cases are of people who are less than 35? Look up the answer and you will realize that the death rate will be about the same as the flu.